Hopefully this doesn't come off as aggressive.
"Being realistic doesn't always mean a good character however you do not need to like what a character does nor the character as a person in order for that character to be good."
I never said this whatsoever. Never said that John is a bad character. I have issues with his character and personally dislike how he acts. And just because he's written well or realistic doesn't mean I have to like said character. A character can be the best written character in the world and can still be disliked. Hence my issue. John can be considered well written to some, doesn't mean I have to like him or consider him a good character. Doesn't mean his actions have to be justified. Doesn't mean I have to approve of what he's doing. This is MY issue.
"John is acting like a dick and is very much questionable (still holding out hope though that he at least regrets or feels guilty about Blyke). However he IS a good character."
I mean, whether he's a "good" or "bad" character is highly subjective. Just because you think he's a good character or not doesn't mean he objectively is seeing as one's opinions on a character is entirely subjective. I go more in depth with this later.
"Just because you don't "like" a character as a person or what the character does that does not mean the character is bad in any way."
It actually can if that's what the person in question perceives as a good character. This is pushing your idea of what decides a good or bad character and stating it to be fact when something like this is entirely subjective. If someone finds a character unlikable, they can consider a character bad character by their own standards. It depends on the person.
"Another example is Walter White from Breaking Bad. From the get go I knew he would be a scumbag but man he put his own pride over his own life and his family's. Yet despite all that he's widely beloved as a character. For being layered, complex, and intriguing."
Once again, this does not make him automatically a good character in someone else's eyes. Someone else can just as validly see him as a shitty character while many love him. And just because a lot of people love him doesn't factually mean he's objectively a good character. That would be fallacious.
"John is layered, complex, and intriguing. He's got depth from his experiences and past that influence his future actions, is complex in that he is multifaceted in development (young John being bully, beginning of series John being someone who is afraid of what he'll do and feels lots of guilt, current John being one who is letting out the built of frustration from beginning of series John)."
Again, just because you think that being layered. complex and intriguing makes one a good character doesn't mean I have to or anyone else has to (of course, I never said John wasn't a good character, just that currently, I don't like his character). A character can as simple and basic as can be and be considered a good or bad character depending on the person's view.
"Other than hurting Blyke and possibly losing himself we seen nothing else inherently "bad." "
It all depends on what your concept of bad is. You see nothing inherently bad, but that doesn't mean I or anyone else won't.
"At this point in time there's nothing else John could do to dismantle the hierarchy as he is seen as a cripple, disclosing who he is not an option as he isn't ready/willing"
Except that is an option. Him being any less willing doesn't make it less of an option. The option exists, it just depends on which one he chooses.
"Honestly I think John would be getting less hate if we knew exactly what was thinking....which we never do. We see his actions at random but when we don't know the actual reason why for everything it seems chaotic and meaningless. When John first took on Isen people weren't happy, then a couple chapters later John finally explains his reasoning and people were ok with it"
Yeah, he would more than likely, but that's an if. Not a guarantee as if we knew what was in his head, then it could be even worse.
